Re: The IPv6 Travesty that is Cogent's refusal to peer Hurricane Electric - and how to solve it

[Mike Hammett <nanog () ics-il net>]

Motivated sales departments always get whatever they want. Always. If they aren't getting what they (or you as 
customer) want, they aren't motivated enough. 




----- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 
http://www.ics-il.com 



Midwest Internet Exchange 
http://www.midwest-ix.com 


----- Original Message -----

From: "jim deleskie" <deleskie () gmail com> 
To: "Matthew D. Hardeman" <mhardeman () ipifony com> 
Cc: nanog () nanog org 
Sent: Friday, January 22, 2016 6:03:17 AM 
Subject: Re: The IPv6 Travesty that is Cogent's refusal to peer Hurricane Electric - and how to solve it 

Was part of my first peering spat, probably 95/96‎ since then many more, 
couple even big enough they made nanog/ industry news, end of day they are 
all the same. If you need to reach every where have more then one provider, 
it's good practice anyway, a single cust or even a bunch of cust are NOT 
going to influence peer decisions, so build your network so any 2 sides not 
playing not, will not impact you cust's, so at least they don't have reason 
to complain to you. 

-jim 

On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 11:42 PM, Matthew D. Hardeman <mhardeman () ipifony com 
> wrote: 

> An excellent point. Nobody would tolerate this in IPv4 land. Those 
> disputes tended to end in days and weeks (sometimes months), but not years. 
>
> That said, as IPv6 is finally gaining traction, I suspect we’ll be seeing 
> less tolerance for this behavior. 
>
>
> > On Jan 21, 2016, at 8:30 PM, Matthew Kaufman <matthew () matthew at> wrote: 
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Jan 21, 2016, at 1:05 PM, Ca By <cb.list6 () gmail com> wrote: 
> > >
> > > On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 10:52 AM, Brandon Butterworth < 
> brandon () rd bbc co uk> 
> > > wrote: 
> > >
> > > > > > On Jan 21, 2016, at 1:07 PM, Matthew D. Hardeman < 
> > > > mhardeman () ipifony com> wrote: 
> > > > > > Since Cogent is clearly the bad actor here (the burden being 
> > > > > > Cogent's to prove otherwise because HE is publicly on record as 
> saying 
> > > > > > that theyd love to peer with Cogent) 
> > > >
> > > > I'd like to peer with all tier 1's, they are thus all bad as 
> > > > they won't. 
> > > >
> > > > HE decided they want to be transit free for v6 and set out on 
> > > > a campaign of providing free tunnels/transit/peering to establish 
> > > > this. Cogent, for all their faults, are free to not accept the 
> > > > offer. 
> > > >
> > > > Can the Cogent bashing stop now, save it for when they do something 
> > > > properly bad. 
> > > >
> > > > brandon 
> > >
> > > Selling a service that is considered internet but does not deliver full 
> > > internet access is generally considered properly bad. 
> > >
> > > I would not do business with either company, since neither of them 
> provide 
> > > a full view. 
> > >
> > > CB 
> >
> > I note that if IPv6 was actually important, neither one could have 
> gotten away with it for so long. 
> > Matthew Kaufman 
> >
> > (Sent from my iPhone)